Hi,
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:25, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 01:20:25PM +0800, Jiang Biao wrote:
> > From: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > pci_read_config() could block several ms in kernel space, mainly
> > caused by the while loop to call pci_user_read_config_dword().
> > Singel pci_user_read_config_dword() loop could consume 130us+,
> > | pci_user_read_config_dword() {
> > | _raw_spin_lock_irq() {
> > ! 136.698 us | native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath();
> > ! 137.582 us | }
> > | pci_read() {
> > | raw_pci_read() {
> > | pci_conf1_read() {
> > 0.230 us | _raw_spin_lock_irqsave();
> > 0.035 us | _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore();
> > 8.476 us | }
> > 8.790 us | }
> > 9.091 us | }
> > ! 147.263 us | }
> > and dozens of the loop could consume ms+.
> >
> > If we execute some lspci commands concurrently, ms+ scheduling
> > latency could be detected.
> >
> > Add scheduling chance in the loop to improve the latency.
>
> Thanks for the patch, this makes a lot of sense.
>
> Shouldn't we do the same in pci_write_config()?
Yes, IMHO, that could be helpful too.
I'll send v2 to include that. :)
Thanks a lot for your comment.
Regards,
Jiang
